TO: Joint Procedure Committee
FROM: Mike Hagburg
DATE: April 3, 2013
RE: Rule 43, N.D.R.Civ.P., Evidence; Rule 28, N.D.R.Crim.P., Interpreters
At the January meeting, the committee discussed proposed amendments to Rule 43 and Rule 28 designed to wholly supersede N.D.C.C. §§ 31-01-11 and 31-01-12. The main rule text change proposed was adding a section on interpreters, based on the federal language, to Rule 43.
During the discussion of the rules, the committee pointed out problematic language in the proposed amendments to Rule 43 and in the existing text of Rule 28. Committee member suggested that the problematic language was not consistent with federal standards because it could be read to suggest that a disabled person could be taxed with the costs associated with hiring an interpreter or that costs might be a consideration in deciding whether to provide interpretive services. The committee decided to table the proposals pending further review of the rule language.
During the interim between meetings, Chief Justice VandeWalle and State Court Administrator Sally Holewa reviewed the challenged language and agreed that it was problematic. They pointed to an Aug. 16, 2010, letter from the Department of Justice and to the ABA Standards for Language Access in the Courts as resources providing guidance for drafting appropriate rules for interpreters. A copy of the letter and of the "black letter" portion of the ABA standards are attached.
Proposed amendments to Rule 43 and Rules 28 are attached. The amendment language is derived from ABA Standard 4, Interpreter Services in Legal Proceedings.